Former Chicago Police Department superintendents Eddie Johnson, Garry McCarthy and Jody Weis sat down with NBC 5 for a candid discussion on the city’s public safety crisis led by NBC Chicago news anchor Stefan Holt.
The conversation, "Moving Chicago Forward: A Real Conversation about Crime," aired on NBC 5 and NBC Chicago digital platforms Thursday, with an encore presentation airing at 10 a.m. on Sunday, April 2.
Chicagoans have made clear that public safety is among the number one issues facing the city, but the question is how to make Chicago safer for all residents?
What solutions have failed and what could still work?
Read a full transcript of the conversation below, but first, here's who will be talking:
Jody Weis, a 23-year veteran of the FBI who rose to special agent in charge of the Philadelphia field office and became the first superintendent from outside of the Chicago Police Department in 50 years. He served from February 2008 to March 2011 and is now a private consultant.
Garry McCarthy, who rose through the ranks of the NYPD and became the top cop in Newark, New Jersey. He served as Chicago's police superintendent from May 2011 to December 2015 and is now the police chief in suburban Willow Springs.
Local
Eddie Johnson, who started as a patrol officer in the Chicago Police Department and eventually became a commander, chief of patrol and served as superintendent from March 2016 to December 2019.
_____________
Feeling out of the loop? We'll catch you up on the Chicago news you need to know. Sign up for the weekly Chicago Catch-Up newsletter.
Stefan Holt: Gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us. We see the crime numbers. We hear the rhetoric on TV and in the ads all the time, but I want to hear from you, the former police superintendents. Jody, we'll start with you. What do you see as the number one that public safety threat to the city of Chicago?
Jody Weis: You know, my experience, it's going to be gangs. Gangs have been a plague in the city for quite some time. And I think if you can address the gang problem in an effective way ... I think you can get the city much, much safer.
Stefan: Garry McCarthy, what is your what is the number one public safety threat to Chicago?
Garry McCarthy: It's hard to say which is number one, because it's probably a tie with about five different issues. Certainly the gangs like Jody said, but the politics of Chicago, I think, is absolutely crushing the CPD and at the same time interfering with policies. My first tenant to take that job was with Rahm Emanuel. I said, 'Listen, I will keep your politics forefront in my mind, but I'm going to run a department based upon performance.' And he agreed to it. Now, you know, I had to remind him constantly, and it wasn't easy. Sometimes I had argue with him, but 99% of the decisions that were made during my tenure I made and, you know, I picked who is getting promoted. I decided what the policies were going to be. And that's not happening today or I shouldn't say it hasn't been happening certainly for the last few years.
Stefan: So you nodded a little bit when when Gary said politics.
Eddie Johnson: Yeah, you know, I agree with both my former bosses, you know, in terms of the gangs and the politics of it, you know, like Gary just mentioned, you know, when I was superintendent, mostly under Rahm Emanuel, after he let me run a police department 100%, you know, he never butted in on any decisions or tried to implement policies that he thought should be. He left that up to me. And I think that the, you know, the threats now, people just have to recognize you have to let the police be the police, because if you don't, then we run into what we have now. People mistakenly think criminals are stupid - and we do have some dummies out there, no doubt - but a lot of them pay attention to what's going on in the politics of this city and they take advantage of them.
Garry: Jody mentioned the gang problem. Here's another example. We came up with a gang violence reduction strategy that ... it was based upon data we looked at. Who were the gang members? Who were the turfs that they claimed? Who were they in conflict with? So if a shooting happened here, we didn't send everybody here. We sent them to the rival gang turf to prevent the retaliation shooting. That was the most successful thing that we did under my tenure. I think that that really had an impact on violent crime. And the gang database came under attack politically because some people were in there who maybe shouldn't have been in there. But by the same token, I'm not sure there was a harm to those individuals. But we were we were having great success in preventing the retaliation shootings that were happening within five minutes of each other.
Stefan: The idea of the gang database and as you mentioned, there were some inaccuracies in there. I mean, there were several activist groups and even the inspector general that said some of this data was just not effective or in some cases was even unconstitutional or racist. So how do you respond to that?
Garry: Well, I don't I don't know how it could have been unconstitutional or racist. We weren't going after individuals. But if Garry McCarthy was listed as a Four Corner Hustler and I got shot in Four Corner Hustler territory, we would know who the Four Corner Hustlers were in conflict with and go to the geography. And that's how we were preventing the shootings. So not understanding the strategy leads to problems. And when people who are outside of criminology or policing influence policies like that - you know, you don't tell doctors head operate, you don't you don't hire a plumber to do your electricity. So, you know, years and years of experience, certainly between the three of us and this happens across policing and it's a problem.
Stefan: I want to bring Jody Weis in on this because you were criticized in your tenure for actually sitting down with gang leaders. A lot of people chalk that up to negotiating with criminals. But you've actually said this was a way that best reduce gang violence. Could you explain that?
Jody: That kind of makes me laugh when I think back about the people who have no clue what they're saying, criticizing something that really worked. But what we tried to do was bring in all of the gang leaders in a particular area, sit down, talk to them. And when we did that we had pictures up on the wall of people who had gone to prison. And we emphasized the RICO statute, which is up there I'd love to talk about later on. And we showed them, if you engage in this violence, you're going to go away for a long time. That drove a very strong point. There was no negotiating and there was no give and take. We brought in faith based community leaders to help them out, give them some ideas if you want to get out of a gang, here's something else you could do. And I think that's important to have that type of dialog. But as Gary alluded to, Eddie agrees, when you have people that really weren't there and they don't understand the logic behind it, then you get involved in a lot of people come up with this naysaying attitude and those programs worked very effective in that particular area. I believe there was about a 45% reduction in violent crime right after that. And it does send a very clear message that we are going to come after you. We're going to do it. We're saying I'm going to use federal crimes and federal statutes, which will put people in jail for a long time.
Garry: Jody started that in Chicago. We continued it and we expanded it.
Stefan: You would both sit down with gang leaders and talk to them?
Eddie: Yes, absolutely.
Garry: Yes. And we would deliver a very clear message. There were three voices. There was the voice of law enforcement where we said, 'If one of you steps out of line, there's group accountability here and we'll do warrant enforcement, we'll do narcotics enforcement, we'll do whatever we can for the bad gang.' And we tell them, 'I don't hate you. I want you to live a productive life. I don't want you to go to prison. But I'll certainly put you there if it's going to provide for the public safety.' And then we would help the voice of pain with parents of murdered children who would talk to these kids. Some of them would start crying because they know people who were killed and so on. And then we were working with the Safer Foundation, who would offer them help if they needed, you know, assistance getting off of alcohol or narcotics, if they needed to get a driver's license so that they could get a job that worked.
Eddie: It absolutely did. And then when I became superintendent, we continued and then added a few more pieces, such as, you know ... I discovered - and I know that they know this, too - when you have those individuals coming out of prison and they get back involved in the gang life, if you don't give them a lifeline to some employment so they can do something gainfully because there's nothing like seeing one of these guys when they get their first paycheck and they come back to us and say, 'Look at what I did,' because they want to provide for their families. But I guarantee you this, if you don't provide something, if you don't provide housing and employment for those guys within six months ... if they can't feed their families, then guess what? They're going to start doing what they did to get in to prison. But I absolutely agree that those programs worked. And we saw the reduction in crime as a result of that.
Stefan: We talk a lot about gun violence with the gang violence as well. Why does Chicago have such a problem with guns in shootings?
Eddie: Because they're so easy to get in this city. They're easy to get. You know, we border states that just don't look at gun transportation like we do. Politicians just don't want to look at the logical steps to take. They're just incredulous to what we actually need. But the one thing that frustrated me to the degree as superintendent, because we all had to go to Springfield and lobby for certain stricter laws, but what really is upsetting to me is you will hear across the country, Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the country. That's a bunch of hogwash. It's not...
Garry: NRA rhetoric.
Eddie: It's not true. If it were true, we wouldn't see what we see.
Stefan: I want to bring in Jody Weis because I see you're nodding to this conversation. What is your take on the reason why we have so much gun violence in Chicago?
Jody: You know, I think it's a multitude of things. And I may differ a little bit with Eddie and Gary's point. I actually think Illinois has some pretty strong gun gun laws on the books. The problem is the judges don't like them. And when I talked to the state's attorney, I asked her, why aren't we charging this? And her answer was the judges. The judges had refused to hear cases like that. You can have the greatest laws on the books if you don't have judges who are willing to enforce them. It's not going to happen. And the judges, in my opinion, have gotten a pass for way too long. You know, everybody wants to point fingers at the men and women in uniform. That's easy. And people want to go to the state's attorney's office. But the judges who are all elected officials get a pass every time. And that's very, very frustrating. And I think the new mayor is going to have to work to kind of build a cohesive criminal justice system where the police, the judges, as well as the state's attorney, are all working together. It's going to take that type of leadership to create a culture where violence in Chicago is just unacceptable and there's not one entity that can make it go away. But if people work together, I think you see a huge difference in the cities.
Stefan: Do you agree with that?
Garry: Absolutely.
Eddie: There's just not enough for a cop to arrest someone with a gun. That's just the beginning of it. And when you follow those cases through, you see that most of those guys get, you know, the case ... gets kicked out eventually. So if the courts and the judges aren't in lockstep with the police department, it just is...
We invited the chief judge of the Circuit court of Cook County to respond to the talking points of our conversation today. Their office did not get back to us before our deadline.
Stefan: You mentioned some of the younger gang members, and that's been a huge issue with the number of carjackings, vehicular hijackings. In the city of Chicago in 2022, 1,948 people were the victim of a vehicular hijacking. According to city data. It was worse the year before - 2,149 people were the victim of a hijacking in 2021. What do you tell people who are just terrified to drive in the city of Chicago?
Garry: Keep your head on a swivel. Keep your head on a swivel ... In Newark, we had the same problem and we started doing federal prosecutions. Guess what? It went away. It went away.
Stefan: Can you do federal prosecutions, though, when so many of these suspects are teenagers, they're kids?
Eddie: That's the problem because we did a lot of federal prosecutions, too. But the federal government isn't set up to handle juveniles. And so that becomes an issue. But I'll tell you this: if you want to prevent carjackings, so bring that number back down, to Gary's point, people get jacked a lot of times because they're not paying attention to what's going on. You have to pay attention. So there are fundamental things we can do as a society, as a city, to bring it down. But the juveniles are a problem. But I also want to point out to a lot of the crime issue in Chicago, it's not just about the police. You know, sure, citizens have to take some accountability for this, too.
Stefan: So I want to get back to this issue of kids getting involved in gangs or kids getting involved in some very serious crimes that could change the course of their life for good. Is it the community aspect? Is it law enforcement? Is it is it social services? How do you get them to stop committing these crimes?
Jody: You know, it's it's actually, I think, a combination of things. You know, first off, it always starts in the home. I think that's really important. And the schools have to be involved. You almost have to create this culture that we are not, as a city, going to stand for this violent crime. Chicago has a very strong black faith based community. You've got to get people really emphasizing what it is to be good citizens, get to them early, start talking to them about alternatives. As Eddie mentioned, give them opportunities to go something else beside a gang. And when they get that first paycheck, that's legitimate and they're not going to go to jail and they're not going to wind up dead before they're 18 years old, might be a different story for them.
Stefan: I want to get back to the issue of prosecutions, because there's been a lot of complaints with the current administration, the police department from David Brown, that the Cook County State's Attorney's office is just not prosecuting a lot of these cases that are brought before them.
Eddie: I can tell you this ... while I was Superintendent, Kim Foxx and I had a great relationship, the two of us. However, the relationship between the ground troops was a little strange. And I have to admit, you know, if the detective division called me and said, 'Hey, we have a problem with this state's attorney over here,' for whatever it was, I would give her a ring. And to be honest, she never let me down with that. She always took care of it. But, you know, there were some times when we had some issues with trying to get a prosecution for something, you know, and then not just getting the charging part of it done, but the whole process, you know, ensuring that these people that commit these violent crimes are held to account, because if you don't, the other gang members, they look at that kind of stuff and they say, 'Whoa, wait a minute, we might have a free pass.'
We invited the Cook County State's Attorney's office to respond to some of the talking points in our discussion. Here's what they had to say:
The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (CCSAO) is committed to public safety, and we work with our law enforcement partners on a continual basis to prosecute cases and do justice in the pursuit of safe communities. This administration has now worked with four Chicago Police Superintendents to prosecute cases in a tireless effort to keep our communities safe. We are extremely proud of the efforts of the dedicated, hardworking members of the State's Attorney's Office who work every day to create a safer, stronger Cook County.
Stefan: Jody Weis, let me bring you this conversation, because I think we talk about the state's attorney, but getting federal prosecutions, getting the U.S. Attorney's office to start taking on some of these cases. How does that work? How can we make that work?
Jody: Well, it just gets people to make a commitment. I was really blessed when I was the in charge of the criminal division in Los Angeles for the FBI because Bill Bratton was the chief in the LAPD and we had a firecracker head of criminal for the United States Attorney's office in the central District of California. He would do a RICO investigation on four people. I tried to do that in Chicago, and all I heard was, 'Oh, it's manpower intensive. I don't want to do that.' But you know what? RICO is a pretty strong statute to use against these gang members, and they're going to go to 25 years of life. They're going to serve 80% of that. And it's going to be at a place far, far away from Chicago. And I think you've you've if you can get a United States Attorney who's willing to invest in those resources. And I do realize that it does take manpower to do a RICO investigation. But you start doing those with the right messaging. And I think the gang members will start taking note of like that this isn't fun anymore.
We invited the U.S. Department of Justice to respond to some of the talking points of our conversation. Their office declined to comment.
Stefan: Jody, you mentioned manpower, and I open this up to the group. Do we need more cops in the city of Chicago?
Garry: I, you know, I always say that it's more important what they're doing than how many you have. And, you know, that doesn't mean that we're not short. I don't know where they're deployed, but I can tell you this. We put the cops out on the beat. We went to geographical integrity, moving away from from these big task forces. Because, you know, I kind of thought when I got here that we had really three different departments. We had the 'I answer the radio' police because the guys and gals in the beat, that's all they could do. They couldn't do affirmative proactive police work because they were just answering calls for service. Then we had CAPS, which was 'I make people feel good by going to meetings' and and kind of doing that, and then we had the 'I do the enforcement police.' Well, I think that, you know, Johnson or Weis and McCarthy sitting in a beat car be all three of those police officers and I would know the difference between the five kids who come on for basketball practice on that corner versus the five kids who are standing on the other corner.
Stefan: You kind of mentioned this idea, Eddie, earlier about getting to know people in the community that the officers almost an integral part of the neighborhood. Would you like to see more of that, too?
Eddie: We do need more cops because if you don't have enough and and they're tied to that radio all day, that's all they can do. They can't they don't have time to get to know the people in their communities. They don't have time to do proactive stuff. They don't have time to do officer friendly things because they're so busy answering the radio calls. So, you know, yes. That's not good. It's not in a city with 2.7 million people.
Stefan: It's clear that police has a community relations problem. Do you ever envision a time when the community, especially Black and Brown communities, trusts police officers? It's clear that police has a community relations problem. Do you ever envision a time when the community, especially Black and Brown communities, trust police officers?
Garry: Yeah, I do. I do. But we're taking the wrong medicine for what ails us. What we don't talk about is victimization. Of victims, north of 80% are African-American. Now, the Constitution is written to defend the rights of the accused. We get that. But we have to have some serious discussions. You know, we have never had trust because apparently we're accountable for segregation, discrimination, redlining, the break up of the family unit, poor education and economic opportunity all at the same time. It's not just the police. Let's not forget that it's a law enforcement system, which includes prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and so on and so forth, sheriffs. All of these things matter. And if it's not a functional system, it's going to fail. And we get blamed for everything. So we have to have these discussions. And I used to have some ... I used to love going to the South and West Side and talking about this stuff. And, you know, one of the things that I love is, you know, Black audiences talk back to you. And I would talk about race, I would talk about segregation, I would talk about redlining, and they would be talking back to me. And I'd talk, 'You know, we're the most segregated city in the country.' And that's right. And then I'd say, 'But then we insist on it, don't we?' We want Black commanders and Black cops in Black neighborhoods. We want Hispanics in Hispanic neighborhoods. That's not going to build trust. What's going to build trust is having a conversation.
Eddie: I'll push back on one thing. The trust issue in the Black neighborhoods is not that it was never there because certain portions of the black neighborhoods in black Chicago do trust the police. They do. Problem is, in my opinion, that the the minority that don't trust the police are the loyal ones. That's who you hear from all the time. And I can tell you this, I never went in one Black or brown community that didn't say they don't want the police there. What they did say, though, was that we want the police to treat us fairly and respectfully. And I think that's a valid ask because that's how we should treat them.
Stefan: But it also almost puts the police where they have to be almost beyond reproach, where you have to be on your A-game every day.
Eddie: You should be. You should be.
Garry: That's what we want. That's what we expect.
Jody: The other thing I wanted to just mention about that is, you know, you get these some of these so-called experts and statisticians and they look at the arrests and they say predominantly, you know, the, you know, it's African-American young men that are being arrested. What they never look at are the victims that are being called in, which as Gary said is predominantly African-American victims. So who are the police are going to respond to? They call 911. They go to the South and West Side of Chicago and they make arrests. But they, these these folks who claim to be the experts, never look at, well, who's calling the police? Who are the real victims? And the message keeps getting out like the police are racist, whether they're Black or brown or white doesn't matter. It's just systemically racist. And it's just not true. And I think I do think law enforcement needs to do a better job. I know I could have done a better job in terms of getting the message out.
Garry: I want to build on this a little bit because this is something that we never have an opportunity to talk about. We only get to talk in soundbites, right? But in 2015, the issue of stop and frisk blew up across the country. And it certainly was coming to Chicago. And my my press guy comes to me and says, 'Hey boss, what are we going to do about this? Because they're going to come after you because you came from New York. I said, 'We're going to do analysis.' He says, 'Why?' I said, 'Because I want to show people that we don't stop people, we don't arrest people based on population demographics, which is the standard that's being used by the Department of Justice. To say that is racial profiling. That's the standard they use. We're going to do the analysis for 2013 and 2014. And guess what? In every one of the 77 communities in the city of Chicago who, when and where we stopped and arrested was within one or two percentage points of A. arrest data and B. offender description by the victim. Take Englewood - 90 something percent African-American. We're going to stop 32% white guys there? A. that one guy would get stopped a lot. But, B. that's profiling."
Stefan: I know there's an inspector general's report that talked about the number of police officers that stopped people and use of force. The Office of the Inspector General: more than 83% of those incidents that led to use of force involved a Black person. I think this perception of a pattern that this happens over and over again and it might not be causal, it might not be bias-related. Maybe it is. But I think the sense that people feel like this is happening over and over and again. What do you say to that?
Garry: I don't want to simplify this to this level, but if an officer violates the law, if they use excessive force and need to be prosecuted. If they violate policy, they need to be disciplined or retrained. That's it.
Stefan: Does that happen enough in the police department right now, where officers do face discipline?
Garry: Now it's getting overdone.
Stefan: Overdone?
Garry: If we're going to be a legitimate organization or legitimate profession, we have to have internal legitimacy, which is free of the politics.
Eddie: No, you know, I agree. You know, it's a difficult thing in Chicago, the politics of how we do things. You know, I remember testifying in Springfield. We have like seven oversight committees for the Chicago Police Department.
Garry: We just added two more levels.
Eddie: And it's just, it's insane. You think about this for a moment. I know all three of us have tried to fire police officers that should not be Chicago police officers, only to get our recommendation overturned by the police board. You know, and it's just it's frustrating because to Garry's point, if a cop violates the law and they engage in egregious behavior, they should be fired and sent to prison if what they did constitutes that. However, if they make a mistake, then they should be retrained and disciplined accordingly. But they should not be subject to prosecution because mistakes happen. You know, I tell people all the time, if you make a mistake while you're working at Samsung, somebody's TV doesn't work. But if you make a mistake in law enforcement, unfortunately, somebody could lose their life. You know, that does not mean that that officer came to work that day saying, I'm going to kill someone. They made a mistake because of the circumstance of events that happened leading up to that.
Stefan: But how do you draw that distinction?
Garry: I just want to ... Eddie just said something that's really important that I don't think people realize. We were trying to fire bad cops. And 75% of my tenure got overturned until - I'm going to give Lori credit for something - when she took over the police board, the discipline system was more in tune with my recommendations. Who does the investigations into those uses of force that you're talking about? When I was there, it was IPRA. Today it's called COPA. Okay. So the police superintendent doesn't have the investigations, the police superintendent can't discipline the officers, yet we're accountable. We have accountability without authority. That's a failed business model. But that's the structure of the Chicago Police Department.
Eddie: You wouldn't go into a surgeon's operating room and tell them how to do the operating right. People want to tell the police how to do their business. That, don't get me wrong, we know the history of the racism in Chicago and, you know, in particular in terms of the relationship with Black and brown communities and the decades of mistreatment we know all of that. But at some point, we have to give law enforcement and the police department an opportunity to fix a lot of that. But all the oversight, I think, retards what we really want, because most of the time when you look at it, Stefan, the activists in the Black and brown communities and the police department, we all want the same thing. We just take different roads to get there.
We invited the Chicago Police Board to respond to the talking points of our conversation today. Here's what they had to say:
“There are many factors that are reviewed in a Police Board case---including the evidence presented by the Superintendent’s lawyers in a public hearing--- and the Board stands by its decisions and its role in the police oversight process. The duty of the Board, mandated by City ordinance, is like that of a court of law, to undertake a thorough review of the evidence in each case and render a fair, unbiased decision. The Board performs this duty with independence and openness. All decisions are written to explain the Board’s reasoning, announced at open meetings, and posted immediately on our website so that everyone can evaluate the Board’s work and hold it accountable. Over the past five years nearly 70% of the officers recommended for discharge from the CPD are no longer on the job (41% were discharged by the Board and 28% resigned prior to a hearing). The Board suspended without pay approximately 20% and found about 10% not guilty of all charges. As is their right, officers and the Superintendent can appeal a Police Board decision, and courts have upheld 100% of the Board’s 14 decisions that have been appealed and ruled on in the past 5 years.”
Stefan: Clearly, there's a morale issue within the Chicago Police Department in particular, and Eddie Johnson to bring this up, because you took over in the days after, the year after the Laquan McDonald shooting, that's when we saw a big rise as well in murders and shootings and this dip in morale in the police department. It seems like there's a relationship between the two.
Eddie: There is. So what I had to do was two things because the police felt like they were under a microscope because of that shooting. Of course. So I had to not only go out in the communities to try to repair that trust, which was a gargantuan task, you know, every day until 10, 11 at night, I was out there, especially that first eight or nine months that I became superintendent. But the other piece of that is then you have to gather the police. I did a town hall structure where we go to different parts of the city and gathered 200 officers together, and we would just have candid conversations, you know. But what happens is that once you talk to those police officers and get to know what their fears are and then you can get the on board with it, because it's just not about the superintendent. We can tell the rank and file what the mayor thinks to the cows come home. But until that mayor actually goes and speaks to them personally and let them speak back to him or her and tell them what they're really looking for, they have to know that there's some there's some support. And every time they make an honest mistake, they're not going to be looking at prison. That's important for them because at the end of the day, they're are people like the rest of us, you know, and they have the same trials and tribulations. Think about this for a moment. These cops in Chicago, we ask them for eight hours a day, go out there and solve everybody else's problems. Right? You don't think they have those same issues when they get home? That is, they do. Sure. Because they're just Chicagoans just like everybody else. And we should hold them to a higher standard. You know, that's what we expect from, you know, but if we want them to be the best, we've got to treat them like the best. And, you know, and part of that is getting them the support, the training and the equipment they need to really, you know, do the job the way we want them to do. But at the same time, you know, if if we're living in an anti-police culture right now across this country, it's difficult to tell these police officers we have your back when they see on the news, blah, blah, blah. So it's important for the superintendent and the mayor to just not talk the talk, but you've got to walk the walk. But as police superintendent, we still have to look at all the facts, not jump to conclusions and then render a decision. And sometimes that's just not what the public wants to hear. Now, on the other hand - I know I was like this, and I know both of them were - if I saw a cop do something that was in clear violation, you can't hold it back because you make all of us look bad when you do those types of things. So Chicago just doesn't have the system where the police superintendent has the authority to really hold these officers accountable the way we want to.
Garry: Morale is so important in my mind, and I think leadership matters, and we all know that. And, you know, during my tenure and I'm not bragging because these guys are great, don't get me wrong, we had less crime every year. Complaints against our officers went down, police-related shootings went down by something like 41%, complaints against cops were down something like 37% over my tenure. We made less arrests and got better results. Aren't those the outputs that we want from a police department? Well, the Department of Justice, during my tenure is coming to Chicago and bringing people here from across the country to learn what we were doing, to take those things back to their departments because we were having that type of success. And then one incident blew up everything, because now the very same Department of Justice that was bragging about what we were doing and supporting it and bringing it to two other departments across the country suddenly came here and castigated everything that we were doing. Now, that affects officers. Sure. In a big way.
Eddie: It's funny, he mentions that because I can remember after the Department of Justice did that, you know, and came out with the patterns and practices that we were abusing our power. I never forget when we decided to roll out those body worn cameras, we initially went out to the rank and file to pitch the body cams. And in my opinion, when I initially looked at it, I loved it because I thought that that was a way to tell our side of the story. Okay. So we go out and pitch this idea about the body-worn cameras and they really they didn't have a choice in it. You know, they were going to have to do it whether they wanted to or not. But I will never forget that first district we went to. They were like, I don't want nothing to do with this. Within two months, I went back over there to that district and I had officers telling me I won't leave home without this thing now because they had to see it to believe how it actually did help them.
Jody: The past couple of years have been bad for those men and women, and there's got to be a big investment in leadership, in equipment, in training, anything they need. And it's got to come not only from the superintendent, but it's got to come from the mayor, it's got to come from the state's attorney and it's got to come from the judges. And if you can get that, that, in my opinion, will boost morale.
We reached out to COPA, the Citizen Office of Police Accountability, to get their response to some of the talking points of this conversation. Here's what they had to say.
Andrea Kersten, chief administrator for COPA: "Copa doesn't just come to be on its own. It comes out of the Department of Justice report, examining policing in Chicago, examining the accountability systems and the failures in accountability that occurred prior under independent police review authority and beyond. Having that independent investigation be separate from and removed from the Chicago Police Department and led by civilians is a really key component to the authority that we have as an agency. And this isn't a model that you just see in Chicago, but each and every superintendent under COPA and any other agency that existed before has always had the authority to weigh in on those recommendations. It's not just unfettered access and decision making that we have as an investigative body. We have to make a recommendation that ultimately has to be accepted or rejected by the superintendent of the Chicago Police Department. And when you look at the data surrounding our recommendations, we agree far more than we disagree on most of these cases. Out of the around 1000 cases that we closed last year, the disagreements between COPA and the superintendent were far less than 50. But really, what I want to make sure that the public understands and ultimately, you know, speaking directly to any future superintendent, understanding the importance and legitimacy of civilian oversight in policing is of critical public safety importance."
Stefan: This is a great conversation. I really want to get to the point now about the plans for the future. We're going to have a new mayor. We're going to a new police superintendent. Of course, public safety is the number one issue in the race for mayor in Chicago. Brandon Johnson and Paul Vallas both have two very distinct plans when it comes to stemming violent crime in Chicago. I'd like you to talk about the pros and cons of their ideas, starting with Brandon Johnson. Here's what he had to say at a forum hosted by NBC 5 and Telemundo.
Brandon Johnson: The public safety plan that I have is going to promote training 200 more detectives. So we can actually solve crime and then alleviate the pressure from law enforcement for having to behave as social workers, counselors and marriage therapists. (Also shown from Johnson's website is a plan to end the ShotSpotter contract)
Eddie: This is sensitive. Some of it is. Okay. Listen, you have to let the police be the police. You really do. You know, police need to know that they have a mayor that supports them. The you talk about trying to 200 detectives to help with the crime rate. That's all well and good. But let's give it to you like this.
Garry: Taking 200 out of patrol.
Eddie: You're taking 200 out of patrol. So you have to put those people back and then you can promote detectives, but they don't know how to be a detective just like that. You know, like, for instance, if they if they go to if they're doing homicides, it's going to take them some years to learn how to do that. So that's not a quick fix. ShotSpotter I can tell you unequivocally that technology and analysis is helps with these crimes because this is what ShotSpotter did for us. Imagine you're in your home and you hear a gunshot, right? You might not know which side of your house it came from, but you know, you heard a gunshot. So a cop comes over there, knocks on your door, and you say, 'Hey, officer, I heard a gunshot. ShotSpotter puts us right there because now they know which side of the house it occurred on. They can go knock on your neighbor's door to make sure everything is okay. So those systems hurt. Now, standing alone. Is that a magic bullet? No. But everything that you do with technology, along with the databases, you know, for instance, the gang database - there needs to be some some tweaking with that thing...
Garry: But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Eddie: Exactly
Garry: If you have a problem with it, fix it. You can't make a plan if you don't have information, you can't make a plan, and you can't do data driven policing if you don't have data. And I already told you how we were able to preempt shootings using the gang data information. If it's if there's a problem with it you fix it, you don't throw it out. I'm sorry Eddie.
Eddie: That's okay. But I think that I don't know who he's speaking with, but I think that that any of us would be able to...
Garry: Somebody who wants to be a detective.
Eddie: I think we'd be able to convey to him which direction, you know, that the police department should go in, because from what I know of him, he does he seems to be open to listening, you know, so I don't know where he's getting that information from.
Garry: What's his reason for getting rid of ShotSpotter? That's what I'm curious about.
Stefan: Well, there are activists who also want to get rid of ShotSpotter. It's a $33 million contract that the city has. Of course, the technology will pinpoint where gunshots are in the city, but they argue, number one, it doesn't prevent crime and that it changes officers' behavior when they respond to a ShotSpotter call. And an example would be the Adam Toledo shooting. Those officers were responding to a ShotSpotter call.
Garry: So let me ask you this. Should we just wait and respond to the 911 call 5 minutes after the shots were fired? Because that's what's going to happen. We're getting immediate information, which gives us an opportunity to intercede and somebody's dying.
Eddie: Yeah, listen, it was never designed to prevent crime. It was designed to get us there quicker because I know how...
Garry: To prevent the next crime, to prevent the next one.
Stefan: So essentially, does it save lives then?
Eddie: Listen, we actually caught offenders at the scene several times because of ShotSpotter. So it does help. Is it going to do that every time? No, but it points you in the right direction. So to just get rid of it is just...
Stefan: Jody Weis let me bring you in on this, the conversation about ShotSpotter. Brandon Johnson also saying he
wants to recruit, train and promote 200 new detectives from the existing rank and file. What do you think about that?
Jody: Well, I think it's great to have more detectives because people investigating the crimes, you can then maybe get the people who are actually pulling the triggers, doing the robberies, doing the raping off the scene. But as my former colleagues just said, where are they coming from? Now you're taking 200 people off of, you know, out of patrol. If you want to look at the $30 million contract as is, are you getting your money's worth? That's a viable question and maybe a good discussion to have. But to say it's not working, I mean, if you catch just a handful of people from that, they're the ones that are pulling the triggers. And when you fire a gun in the city, nothing good is going to happen from that. So if you've got a system that can help take shooters off the street, why would you want to get rid of it for other reasons other than perhaps financial?
Stefan: That leads us to our next candidate. Let's talk about Paul Vallas, his plan for public safety. Here's what he had to say in our forum.
Vallas: We need to return to community-based policing where we have beat integrity. We also need to return to community based policing, where the CTA platforms and the stations and the trains have the presence of police officers.
Eddie: Yeah. I mean, you know, to the point we made earlier, you know, when cops get out there on the beat, they get to know the communities that they're, you know, patrolling. And that's, that can never be a bad thing. That's always a good thing. And getting ranks back at the numbers is, it's important because in a city like this, as big as it is, and the issues that we have, you know - don't get me wrong, you don't want to get crazy - but I think 13,000 somewhere in there is a pretty sweet spot for a city this size and the crime issues that we have, because trust me, I wish we didn't need the police in this city. I really do. But the simple reality of it is we do.
Stefan: Your message to the new mayor. What does CPD need from the fifth floor of City Hall? What can they do differently?
Garry: Put the right people in the right seats and let them drive the bus. And I got to tell you, Stefan, I think it's going to be really difficult to recruit quality candidates because the job is just getting harder and harder and harder. And, you know, I don't know what the talent level is out there today and who's going to want to come here under these conditions and try and turn this place in the right direction.
Stefan: I can think of several big departures from the CPD in the last year or so. Brendan Deenihan was the chief of detectives.
Garry: One of the hardest working, most talented guys. It says something when they. I'm sorry to interrupt. I keep doing it. When somebody like Brendan leaves the department two weeks before a mayoral election, when that's a guy who should be looking at getting the top job.
Eddie: You know, let me tell you, Stefan. So, because I came up through CPD, I have a unique view. My time coming up through the ranks, you never saw people that made it to the rank of chief in their early fifties leave the department. You had to drag them out, man, until retirement age. So the fact that you saw all these people leaving 55 or under is says something. Something wasn't quite right there. Those should be the people coming up now that should be taking the reins of the department over. So now you're left with a really thin bench.
Garry: That bench was wiped out.
Stefan: So let me ask you this and then Jody Weis I'll ask you this as well. Show of hands, if you were picked by the commission or by the next mayor to do the job again, would you do it?
Garry: Yes.
Stefan: You would do it?
Garry: Absolutely. It's too important. And you probably sense my frustration watching what's happening. I can't help it. I'm frustrated by nature.
Stefan: Jody Weis, would you do the job again?
Jody: No. I think my time has probably come and gone. I'm 65 now. I'm enjoying life in the desert. Could I help in some way in a consulting role or or give some guidance? 100%. That's what I do right now. But, you know, I think I have the energy for it just like right now. There's other things in my life that I'd like to explore doing. So I'd probably take a hard pass on that.
Eddie: Because I see the situation and I love this city and I love the department. I'm conflicted about it, but the short answer is yes, I would do it, but I don't know if I could commit to four years of it, but I would certainly entertain doing it for a period of time to try to get things back on the right track.
Garry: So I just gave you an emotional response, you know, my wife and children would probably dissuade me.
Jody: Yeah, you might want to run that by that trial.
Stefan: Double check that first. Yeah, but I think in all fairness, for the person who is going to take this job, what advice would you give to them about their expectation as their performance? What do they need to know before they step into that job?
Eddie: I would say in terms of expert expectations, take it slow, you know, a gradual decrease is better than no decrease and certainly better than an increase. I would also tell them, get out into the community, build those relationships and also as as important, your rank and file need to know who you are. They need to absolutely know who you are.
Stefan: So actually get out there.
Eddie: Get out there, talk to them. Yep. Show them that you support.
Garry: The best conversations I had with the police officers were at 4 o'clock in the morning on street corners in Inglewood, in West Lawndale. I think leadership is critically important. This department needs leadership right now. The city needs leadership and be prepared to get spun in all different directions and stay to whatever your plan and your mission is. Stay true to it. You know, take advice, but don't change course.
Jody: The most important thing is probably to try to build morale up in the department. I agree with Eddie. The crime will take care of itself, but I think the men and women have to feel that they are supported. And I would build that support, you know, publicly with the mayor's office, with the state's attorney, with the courts to really show that you're behind the men and women in this department. I think right now they've they've been pretty much abused for the past couple of years and get out and talk to them, talk to - go to every district, go to every roll call, try to find out what they need to do their job and then deliver. I put the men and women in the department first and then work outward from there, but really, really commit at this point in time for what's happened in the past several years, really commit to supporting the police officers 100% without fail.
Stefan: As we wrap things up, I want to just get your final thoughts now on what is it going to take to make people feel safe again in the city of Chicago?
Garry: It's going to take leadership and it's going to take a plan and it's going to take somebody with the backbone to stand up and do the right thing. I mean, you know, people's lives are at stake. This is really important. And that I've always found that fulfilling in policing. You know, we're not we're not putting widgets out, you know, we're we're saving lives. And that has to be recognized and somebody needs to come in, make those decisions, come up with the plan, look at what's worked, what hasn't worked, and move the city forward. And not just address the crime, but the fear of crime. Right now, the fear of crime is through the roof.
Stefan: The fear of crime?
Garry: Yeah.
Stefan: Are these simply you think, like, you know, graffiti, vandalism, things like or just the worry that something bad going?
Garry: The cars going in circles, disorder. Right. All of that stuff matters. All of that stuff matters.
Stefan: Eddie Johnson, your thoughts on that?
Eddie: Yeah, I think Garry made a lot of good points. Transparency in what we're doing and why we're doing It is important to the communities that we serve because they don't want to just feel like you beat them upside the head with things. They want to know why, how you're doing things, and that makes them feel more comfortable with it a lot. Because let's be honest, you can you can talk about the numbers all you want to, but if people don't feel safe, the perception of crime. To Garry's point, the fear crime is huge.
Stefan: Jody Weis, this fear of crime and trying to make people feel safe again, what are your thoughts?
Jody: You know, I think you've got to do three things. Number one, I think you've got to invest in the officers, make sure they feel supported, make sure they're equipped, trained properly so that they can go out and do their job, that they that the leadership of the city, the department, the community really has their their backs. Number two, I think you've got to, as Garry mentioned, really look at what you're doing, what has worked, what is it worked? What's worked in the past? What can you bring back? Make sure there's an accountability and transparency in everything you do. And then finally, I think you've really tried to bring the entire city together so that there's a culture that just says we will not allow this violent crime to capture the city. We don't want to be the national poster child of crime in a city. If you don't feel safe, then it doesn't matter what the numbers show. There's got to be a perception that I'm safe when I walk down the streets of Chicago, and that's going to take a little bit of work.
Stefan: Hopefully ways to move our city forward and ways for people to feel safer again. We're going to wrap up our discussion. I want to thank my guests, Jody Weis, Garry McCarthy and Eddie Johnson for sharing your experience, your ideas, and for sharing your time with us.
